Hi,I bought the Sapphire X1950Pro 512Mb AGP last January to replace my ATI 9800Pro 128Mb card.There was no difference in frame rates for my test situation. However, there was one major difference between the old and new cards. The 9800 frame rate was 1280*1024 whereas the X1950Pro was at 1920*1200.Buying the new card allowed me to get the Dell 24" display and run at very high resolution. The 9800 would have curled up its toes and died if I'd tried those resolutions!By all means buy it but only if you want to run a larger display and higher resolution.BTW, it made a major difference to FSX but most of my flying is still with FS9. It at least allows me to fly occasionally with FSX.Cheers,

Thanks Ray.I ended up biting the bullet and going with the nVidia 8800 640. I do plan to run this with FS9 and my Dell 24" at the 1920x1600 resolution. May be a bit of overkill but I'm virtually sure that eventually I'll be running FSX down the road. I will hopefully get some mileage out of the purchase and be ready at least in the video department when I make the switch.I kept going back and forth with the x1950 pro and the x1950xtx. One side said the x1950 pro would be perfect and it would have been. Then, when looking for the xtx, they were hard to find. When I did find them, the price was comparable or more expensive than the 8800 640. My original idea when I entered this thread was trying to save money. I also began to think that I'd be "looking back" wishing I had gotten an 8800 if I went with the x1950 so I said...what they heck.Stay well...Ed Lin, D.O.S.

Hi Ed,I'm sure the 8800 will serve you well. I'm guessing it's a PCI-E card.My problem was the need for a AGP card which, despite what some say, is just as fast as PCI-E. The marketing people are very good at convincing us to buy the latest and greatest! ;-) One day PCI-E will be faster but not just yet ;-)The reason I didn't get any improvements in frame rates is because FS9 is CPU-bound and no fancy card is going to make much difference for a given resolution. What the newer cards do allow is for FS to run at higher resolutions with no loss of performance which, with all these big displays avalable, is wonderful for us 24" users.I hope you enjoy your new card :-) There's still lots of life left in FS9.Regards,

>The reason I didn't get any improvements in frame rates is>because FS9 is CPU-bound and no fancy card is going to make>much difference for a given resolution. What the newer cards>do allow is for FS to run at higher resolutions with no loss>of performance which, with all these big displays avalable, is>wonderful for us 24" users.>I'm still somewhat surprised about this. When I replaced my 9800PRO 128M with my current NVIDIA 6600GT 256M I got an clear increase in FPS and far less stutter and microstutter. Overclocking my AMD 64 3200+ from 2 GHz to 2.2 GHz (3500+) didn't increase fps or other performence. Now I have better fps in 1280*1023*32 than I had in 1024*768*32 with my previous 9800PRO.

Hi,<>Which suggests the 6600GT is a faster card than the X1950Pro 512Mb. Could be I suppose but it would surprise me. Did you use a saved FS9 situation so you could make an accurate comparison? I use one located at Rwy 36 at Meigs for my tests. Static tests are more accurate than ones with a moving aircraft.<>That's a 10% increase so in theory you should see a frame rate of 20 increase to 22. Not huge and it would require a saved situation to accurately measure the difference.Don't forget to regularly defrag your FS drive - it makes a big difference to stutters etc.Cheers,

>Hi,>><9800PRO 128M with my current NVIDIA 6600GT 256M I got an clear>increase in FPS and far less stutter and microstutter.>>>>Which suggests the 6600GT is a faster card than the X1950Pro>512Mb. Could be I suppose but it would surprise me. Did you>use a saved FS9 situation so you could make an accurate>comparison? I use one located at Rwy 36 at Meigs for my tests.>Static tests are more accurate than ones with a moving>aircraft.>No way my 6600GT is faster than X1950PRO just see what seaquasto got.I'm more inclined to think that your CPU was the limeting factor on your system while it is the videocard on mine.I was not thinking of an

<>I'd be very surprised if a 6600GT was limiting frame rates and not the CPU especially at such low resolutions. For eons now FS has always been CPU-bound. That's why we clamour for faster and faster CPUs. GRaphics cards are now so powerful they can supply identical frame rates at 1920*1200 as they can at 1280*1024 or even lower.I can't find any message from seaqueasto in this thread.<

>I'd be very surprised if a 6600GT was limiting frame rates andWhat about overall smoothness and stutter and microstutter and time to update textures?>I can't find any message from seaqueasto in this thread.>I have been thinking about a thread in the FS9 forum "What a laugh...'the Holy Grail' of flight simulation ha..."by Seasquashtoo. He was able to get stable 30 fps with a CPU similary to mine. That (or close to it) I would call a significant upgrade. In such a case I'm prone to finding this AGP 1950PRO upgrade an interesting alternative to an overall mb upgrade that is going to cost significantly more. In this case I could wait some year or so and see what happens with DX10. I have a feeling that right now is no good time to make major upgrades.

<>With identical settings? Since you don't use a static test how can you make any meaningful comparison? I tend to take such statements with a huge pinch of salt. His, not yours. 30fps is easy once airborne with clear skies. Impossible on approach to a 3rd party EGLL with 100% Ai in cloudy conditions even in FS9 with a state-of-the-art system I would imagine.<Those are gut feelings and can't be measured unlike a static frame rate test which can. Before I upgrade to a new card I would want higher frame rates or the same frame rates at much higher resolution.<>You might get a few more frames but for a significant improvement you need a new mobo and processor. That's always been the case. All you're doing is extending the life of your system a little longer. FSX will need a brand new system to get the most out of it.<>An Intel QX6850 and nVidia 8800 Ultra would represent the current state-of-the-art and would give very good FSX performance but at a price.Cheers,

><mine.>>>>With identical settings? Since you don't use a static test how>can you make any meaningful comparison? I tend to take such>statements with a huge pinch of salt. His, not yours. 30fps is>easy once airborne with clear skies. Impossible on approach to>a 3rd party EGLL with 100% Ai in cloudy conditions even in FS9>with a state-of-the-art system I would imagine.>He wrote that he could throw in anything and it remains solid 30fps. Any plane ant weather As6.>You might get a few more frames but for a significant>improvement you need a new mobo and processor. That's always>been the case. All you're doing is extending the life of your>system a little longer. FSX will need a brand new system to>get the most out of it.>><major upgrades.>>>>An Intel QX6850 and nVidia 8800 Ultra would represent the>current state-of-the-art and would give very good FSX>performance but at a price.>Those components meant a significant increased cost. How long would I have to wait if I wan't them for the same price as of a 6750 core duo and ATI X1950PRO PCIe that was part of my replace mb plan?

<By the time they're affordable new products will be out that are even faster. That's the sad but realistic situation we find ourselves in.The Core2 Duo processors are a bargain at the moment as quad-core ones emerge. Personally I wouldn't buy a quad-core as they're far too expensive. A E6750 would give you great FS9 and decent FSX performance. If you're not interested in DX10 then the X1950Pro is a good card. If DX10 then takes your fancy get a 8800 card.Only you can decide what you want to do but if your current mobo can take a Core2 Duo I'd stay with FS9 and get the E6750.<>He didn't mention how much Ai then? That is one of the biggest frame rate killers know to man especially at large airports.Cheers.

>Only you can decide what you want to do but if your current>mobo can take a Core2 Duo I'd stay with FS9 and get the>E6750.>No my current mb is socket 939 AGP. Core2 duo means new mb RAM in addition to the CPU for me. And also a new PSU.

<>Unfortunately new versions of FS usually need a new system. Consider a network. It extends the life of each PC and you can run FS stuff away from the FS PC which helps to keep things smooth.

><RAM in addition to the CPU for me. And also a new PSU.>>>>Unfortunately new versions of FS usually need a new system.>Consider a network. It extends the life of each PC and you can>run FS stuff away from the FS PC which helps to keep things>smooth.Yes continue with my current mb is a forget about FSX for the time being way.Regarding having several computers in a network does it not imply practical problems like swithing monitors keyboard and a need for a lot of desktop space? Also if I get a new computer with 2 Gb RAM have I not enough of memory anyway?

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Se...7104&CatId=2417Brand name Dual core processor + MB for less than the AGP video card you are talking about. AND its ready for SLI. AND it will run FSXYes, you will have to get ram and a video card but you'll have a system that is UPGRADABLE!Putting serious money into AGP technology is like investing in cassette tape technology. Sure, you can buy cassette tapes, sure you can hear pretty decent music from a tape player but its just plain dead. If you already own a cassette tape player enjoy it I say, but spend $200.00 on a new cassette player? LOLIf you're trying to save a buck, keep on saving it and don't throw money away on dead technology. Again I'll make sure not to dis anyone WITH an AGP system, that is not my intention. If you have a 64mb vid card in an AGP system by all means, get yourself a 256 or 512, but don't look to spend $150.00 and look for 40fps increase (assuming your 10 plus the triple digit increase you think you are going to get). "My current system is running FS9 at max slider levels and does so fairly well"Then I have to ask, WTH are you asking here? WTH are you even considering spending money on dead technology when your system is running fairly well? LOLHow about doing us all a favor. Go reset your AI slider down 20% to 80%, then let us know how many planes you DONT see anymore. Then let us know how much the fps went up. Do you really want to spend $200.00 to see those planes? Give us some real specs here. Also please don't tell us you have a neighbor that is willing to sell you that video card you want for $10.00. We assume you are talking about buying hardware available at open market prices and we are making recommendations to you based on that. The whole discussion is pointless if you are buying used hardware."Will any today existing system run FS11"Don't you already know the answer to that?Ray is giving you good advice. "Move on" past upgrading that system and build a new one. Then place your old system on a network and really increase your computing abilities and flying experience. You seem to be trying to get us all to recommend the purchase of that video card you want so you can justify buying it..